Smith-Barney, Inc. v. Teitler

First Circuit

Smith-Barney, Inc. v. Teitler

CourtCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit

DecidedJune 26, 1997

Docket18-1639

StatusUnpublished

This text of Smith-Barney, Inc. v. Teitler (Smith-Barney, Inc. v. Teitler) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the First Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Smith-Barney, Inc. v. Teitler, (1st Cir. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

No. 97-1009

SMITH-BARNEY, INC.,

Plaintiff, Appellee,

v.

URSULA EKINCI,

Defendant, Appellee.

STANLEY A. TEITLER, P.C.,

Defendant, Appellant.

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE

[Hon. D. Brock Hornby, U.S. District Judge]

Before

Selya, Circuit Judge,

Bownes, Senior Circuit Judge,

and Boudin, Circuit Judge.

Stanley A. Teitler, Stanley A. Teitler, P.C. and Scott Goldstein

on brief for appellant Stanley A. Teitler, P.C. Andrew M. Horton and Verrill & Dana on brief for appellee Smith

Barney, Inc. Douglas F. Jennings on brief for appellee Ursula Ekinci.

JUNE 18, 1997

Per Curiam. Upon careful consideration of the parties'

briefs and the record, we find appellant's contentions to be

without merit. The district court's order correctly

explained the validity and priority of the competing claims.

Smith Barney, Inc. v. Ekinci, 937 F.Supp. 59 (D. Me. 1996).

Affirmed. See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.

-2-

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI